From Reggie Middleton:
Veritaseum website previews the VeADIR: an office productivity suite (think MSFT Office) for the P2P Capital Markets. VeRent: Rent Facility, VeExposure: Access Financial Machine, VeResearch: Deep dive analysis,
VeManagement: Administrator,
VeTokenization
https://veritas.veritaseum.com/platform
Topic: VERITASEUM DISCUSSION THREAD - page 33. (Read 251052 times)
From Reggie Middleton:
The new Veritaseum website was designed to answer many questions & dispel many misconceptions. For instance, you get to learn what Veritaseum & the VeADIR is. No, not a fund, broker or exchange. We bring you back into history & the birth of Blumberg forms https://veritas.veritaseum.com/platform
The new Veritaseum website was designed to answer many questions & dispel many misconceptions. For instance, you get to learn what Veritaseum & the VeADIR is. No, not a fund, broker or exchange. We bring you back into history & the birth of Blumberg forms https://veritas.veritaseum.com/platform
From Reggie Middleton:
For those of you who believed we should have built a website BEFORE we built a product, filed patents and created an analytical framework, I'm sorry we disappointed, but now that the product is built, I'd like to introduce you to the new Veritaseum website https://veritaseum.com
For those of you who believed we should have built a website BEFORE we built a product, filed patents and created an analytical framework, I'm sorry we disappointed, but now that the product is built, I'd like to introduce you to the new Veritaseum website https://veritaseum.com
Guys, is it true that VERI is likely to run out on the exchanges this year? Does Veritasium also sell the token (software-licence) tokens directly to investors? I know Veritasium does not care on which exchanges there on, they have confidence VERI will become very rare.
Never mind, i looked back in the forum, question is answered. 
"Oh, you don't have anymore token? Sure, I will just borrow from the renters. No big deal with that."
"Wow, $4,000 each? Make it $400,000 each. Problem? Ehhhh... I don't think so. As I am just going to get $8000 worth of exposure (from the initial price of $400 per VERI before it went up to $4,000 or even $400,000), I will continue to get $400 worth of VERI. What? It was $400 a piece and now it's at $400,000 a piece? Sure, I will just get 0.001 VERI for my $8000 worth of exposure. Thanks to high divisibility, you can't stop me with limited supply. Bwah hah hah haaa..."
Only stupid people fail to understand.
Update:
Sheep = "Burning unsold token is against capitalism, because Reggie says so."
"Wow, $4,000 each? Make it $400,000 each. Problem? Ehhhh... I don't think so. As I am just going to get $8000 worth of exposure (from the initial price of $400 per VERI before it went up to $4,000 or even $400,000), I will continue to get $400 worth of VERI. What? It was $400 a piece and now it's at $400,000 a piece? Sure, I will just get 0.001 VERI for my $8000 worth of exposure. Thanks to high divisibility, you can't stop me with limited supply. Bwah hah hah haaa..."
Only stupid people fail to understand.
Update:
Sheep = "Burning unsold token is against capitalism, because Reggie says so."
This guy
Veritaseum is a business looking to sell Veritasuem tokens for services, you cannot just change the parameters of the token in order to "get rich quick" a bunch of previous investors which you seem desperate to see, meanwhile expecting to be taken seriously going forward, remember all those FUD cries of "scam"? Well they'd be fully legitimised with your token burning, how can you expect anyone to have faith in the Veritaseum ecosystem if they mess about with the core principles?
Guys, is it true that VERI is likely to run out on the exchanges this year? Does Veritasium also sell the token (software-licence) tokens directly to investors? I know Veritasium does not care on which exchanges there on, they have confidence VERI will become very rare.
And yet Dorkie, with your continued messages on Veritaseum you are still here. Once again, feel free to go and start your own company and show us all how things should be run according to your way of doing business. I will stick with Reggie.
I will keep my Veritaseum tokens and use them as I see fit.
I will keep my Veritaseum tokens and use them as I see fit.
Be very objective in your thinking and analysis.
For sure, your objective thinking will not help me.
But it will help you a lot.
I am here not because I think Veritaseum is 100% defective.
I am here not because I think Veritaseum is 100% perfect.
I am here because I think there can be improvement in place.
What is really so darn hard to understand that?
You, on the other hand, as well as the rest, are still here, because you invested your money in the project.
And you, as well as the rest, are too darn in fear of any potential loss.
As a result, you, as well as the rest, have become..... how should I say this.... in a way become a person that support Veritaseum and only say good things about it, totally irregardless of good or bad.
If it is good, you will argue it is good.
If it is bad, you will still argue it is good.
That is what you, and everyone else, have become.
You will keep your VERI token?
Why do you even need to tell me about that?
Why should I even bother if you will buy or sell?
Please don't make assumptions.
Assumption = making an ass out of you and me.
And yet Dorkie, with your continued messages on Veritaseum you are still here. Once again, feel free to go and start your own company and show us all how things should be run according to your way of doing business. I will stick with Reggie.
I will keep my Veritaseum tokens and use them as I see fit.
I will keep my Veritaseum tokens and use them as I see fit.
"Oh, you don't have anymore token? Sure, I will just borrow from the renters. No big deal with that."
"Wow, $4,000 each? Make it $400,000 each. Problem? Ehhhh... I don't think so. As I am just going to get $8000 worth of exposure (from the initial price of $400 per VERI before it went up to $4,000 or even $400,000), I will continue to get $400 worth of VERI. What? It was $400 a piece and now it's at $400,000 a piece? Sure, I will just get 0.001 VERI for my $8000 worth of exposure. Thanks to high divisibility, you can't stop me with limited supply. Bwah hah hah haaa..."
Only stupid people fail to understand.
Update:
Sheep = "Burning unsold token is against capitalism, because Reggie says so."
"Wow, $4,000 each? Make it $400,000 each. Problem? Ehhhh... I don't think so. As I am just going to get $8000 worth of exposure (from the initial price of $400 per VERI before it went up to $4,000 or even $400,000), I will continue to get $400 worth of VERI. What? It was $400 a piece and now it's at $400,000 a piece? Sure, I will just get 0.001 VERI for my $8000 worth of exposure. Thanks to high divisibility, you can't stop me with limited supply. Bwah hah hah haaa..."
Only stupid people fail to understand.
Update:
Sheep = "Burning unsold token is against capitalism, because Reggie says so."
If you're in the business of selling the token as the Veri team are, how would you explain a "token burn" to your next potential clients?
"Oh yeah, well we sold X amount to this company last week at $400 each, but now we've burned a load of the tokens, so it'll cost you $4,000 each"
"Oh yeah, well we sold X amount to this company last week at $400 each, but now we've burned a load of the tokens, so it'll cost you $4,000 each"
The ratio depends on the cost of getting the exposure to a basket of investment for outperformance.
I think I am the only one in the Veritaseum community that are aware of the importance of reducing token supply. Some others are in favor of reducing the supply, but they have no other basis other than boosting the price. My basis is on reaching the optimal supply, which is actually the existing circulating supply. Reggie would be totally pissed to reduce the remaining 97 mil+ supply because he would earn 97%+ less profit, but as the token can be rented out and resold over and over again, there is no such thing as making less money.
I would like Reggie to explain how reducing the supply would cause him to make less money as a capitalist, despite the fact that the token can be rented out and resold endlessly (unlike Microsoft software license which cannot be rented out nor resold).
I think I am the only one in the Veritaseum community that are aware of the importance of reducing token supply. Some others are in favor of reducing the supply, but they have no other basis other than boosting the price. My basis is on reaching the optimal supply, which is actually the existing circulating supply. Reggie would be totally pissed to reduce the remaining 97 mil+ supply because he would earn 97%+ less profit, but as the token can be rented out and resold over and over again, there is no such thing as making less money.
I would like Reggie to explain how reducing the supply would cause him to make less money as a capitalist, despite the fact that the token can be rented out and resold endlessly (unlike Microsoft software license which cannot be rented out nor resold).
Question about exposure:
Right now in the Beta we are seeing exposure at 1%.
1 VERI to 100 ETH.
In the future it was mentioned that it could be 5%.
1 VERI to 20 ETH.
Assuming I plug-in 1 VERI and assume the 1 VERI/20 ETH exposure in the VeADIR platform:
Question: Can I buy 20 ETH worth of product for 1 VERI? Or not?
What's the point of the exposure? Are there any other benefits? Why not just 1:1 exposure?
Thanks for the help.
Right now in the Beta we are seeing exposure at 1%.
1 VERI to 100 ETH.
In the future it was mentioned that it could be 5%.
1 VERI to 20 ETH.
Assuming I plug-in 1 VERI and assume the 1 VERI/20 ETH exposure in the VeADIR platform:
Question: Can I buy 20 ETH worth of product for 1 VERI? Or not?
What's the point of the exposure? Are there any other benefits? Why not just 1:1 exposure?
Thanks for the help.
I have no problem with the price of VERI increasing of course, but accomplishing that by manipulating supply is.... not right.
Again, a hedge fund charges 2% + 20%. If the VEADIR can return 100%+ annual returns I am happy to pay any fee that amounts to 1-5% or maybe even more. That's a sustainable and healthy business model. Unlike business models like PLR. PLR is a wallet that users are going to need PLR tokens to use. But if the price of PLR goes to $100/token, who is going to pay hundreds of dollars to use a wallet no matter how fantastic it is? the more sustainable model for PLR is to keep the price to use the wallet at a few dollars. BTW, I don't think we know yet how much PLR is going to charge, I'm just setting an example.
Again, a hedge fund charges 2% + 20%. If the VEADIR can return 100%+ annual returns I am happy to pay any fee that amounts to 1-5% or maybe even more. That's a sustainable and healthy business model. Unlike business models like PLR. PLR is a wallet that users are going to need PLR tokens to use. But if the price of PLR goes to $100/token, who is going to pay hundreds of dollars to use a wallet no matter how fantastic it is? the more sustainable model for PLR is to keep the price to use the wallet at a few dollars. BTW, I don't think we know yet how much PLR is going to charge, I'm just setting an example.
I think I am convinced that you have a handicap in comprehension.
Manipulation of supply is... not right.
Being overtly greedy using capitalism as excuse is... not right.
Being unable to set the optimal level of supply to facilitate exchanges is... not right.
There are many ICOs that totally burn all unsold token, including Proof ICO project that you are still endorsing. And if reducing excess supply (or burning them) is considered manipulating supply, then you are endorsing a wrong ICO project.
Are you aware (or not aware) that cryptocurrencies are highly divisible?
I don't understand why the VEADIR access fee percentage has a relationship to crypto market caps? The fees charged by hedge funds have nothing to do with the price of anything. Hedge funds charge 2% and 20% of profits. VERI's fee is just a rate the Reggie thinks is reasonable for the service VERI's platform provides. This rate should have nothing to do with the price.
Assuming I understand what you are saying, does it make sense for VERI tokens to become increasingly rare as the platform is used, as your scenario suggests? I think not.
Assuming I understand what you are saying, does it make sense for VERI tokens to become increasingly rare as the platform is used, as your scenario suggests? I think not.
Imagine the fee is 500%. Meaning to say you need 500 VERI for 100 ETH exposure. ASSUME the entire crypto market cap is in ETH. The total market cap now is 290 bil and ETH price is $620. That translates to 467 mil circulating supply of ETH. For the entire world to have 467 mil worth of ETH exposure, it will need 2335 mil VERI. At current supply, VERI will be in severely short supply and the price will have to go way up.
Imagine another scenario where the fee is 0.1%. Meaning to say you need 0.1 VERI for 100 ETH exposure, or 467,000 VERI for the entire 467 mil worth of ETH exposure. In this case, what use will we need for the remaining 100 mil - 467,000 = 99.533 mil of excess supply?
It does not make sense for VERI to be increasingly rare, as in going to zero. It makes sense for VERI to have low supply vs large supply, or fixed low supply vs increasingly larger supply. Even Reggie himself sometimes imply Veritaseum's market cap to be worth billions in some of his videos by taking the 100 mil supply into account. Thus Reggie indirectly imply that market cap is very relevant, despite the fact that VERI is a utility token, not securities.
Update:
As VERI can be rented out and recycled back to be resold over and over again endlessly (unlike Microsoft Windows software licenses), why do you even think the token can ever be rare as the platform is used? If it becomes so rare to the point of having no supply, then the buyers can borrow the token from us renters. If it becomes so rare to the point of having no supply, then the buyers can buy the token in bulk from Reggie that got his token back from the popular use of the platform. Why is this still very hard to be understood?
Update #2:
What I am suggesting (reducing supply) is not harmful, but instead very beneficial, to everyone (Veritaseum and token holders alike). Why do you guys hate the thing that benefits you?
Update #3:
Reggie is very scared that reducing the supply, or burning unsold tokens, will cause him to make far less money in return for his services. If that is true, then I say Reggie is very narrow-minded.
Again, a hedge fund charges 2% + 20%. If the VEADIR can return 100%+ annual returns I am happy to pay any fee that amounts to 1-5% or maybe even more. That's a sustainable and healthy business model. Unlike business models like PLR. PLR is a wallet that users are going to need PLR tokens to use. But if the price of PLR goes to $100/token, who is going to pay hundreds of dollars to use a wallet no matter how fantastic it is? the more sustainable model for PLR is to keep the price to use the wallet at a few dollars. BTW, I don't think we know yet how much PLR is going to charge, I'm just setting an example.
I don't understand why the VEADIR access fee percentage has a relationship to crypto market caps? The fees charged by hedge funds have nothing to do with the price of anything. Hedge funds charge 2% and 20% of profits. VERI's fee is just a rate the Reggie thinks is reasonable for the service VERI's platform provides. This rate should have nothing to do with the price.
Assuming I understand what you are saying, does it make sense for VERI tokens to become increasingly rare as the platform is used, as your scenario suggests? I think not.
Assuming I understand what you are saying, does it make sense for VERI tokens to become increasingly rare as the platform is used, as your scenario suggests? I think not.
Imagine the fee is 500%. Meaning to say you need 500 VERI for 100 ETH exposure. ASSUME the entire crypto market cap is in ETH. The total market cap now is 290 bil and ETH price is $620. That translates to 467 mil circulating supply of ETH. For the entire world to have 467 mil worth of ETH exposure, it will need 2335 mil VERI. At current supply, VERI will be in severely short supply and the price will have to go way up.
Imagine another scenario where the fee is 0.1%. Meaning to say you need 0.1 VERI for 100 ETH exposure, or 467,000 VERI for the entire 467 mil worth of ETH exposure. In this case, what use will we need for the remaining 100 mil - 467,000 = 99.533 mil of excess supply?
It does not make sense for VERI to be increasingly rare, as in going to zero. It makes sense for VERI to have low supply vs large supply, or fixed low supply vs increasingly larger supply. Even Reggie himself sometimes imply Veritaseum's market cap to be worth billions in some of his videos by taking the 100 mil supply into account. Thus Reggie indirectly imply that market cap is very relevant, despite the fact that VERI is a utility token, not securities.
Update:
As VERI can be rented out and recycled back to be resold over and over again endlessly (unlike Microsoft Windows software licenses), why do you even think the token can ever be rare as the platform is used? If it becomes so rare to the point of having no supply, then the buyers can borrow the token from us renters. If it becomes so rare to the point of having no supply, then the buyers can buy the token in bulk from Reggie that got his token back from the popular use of the platform. Why is this still very hard to be understood?
Update #2:
What I am suggesting (reducing supply) is not harmful, but instead very beneficial, to everyone (Veritaseum and token holders alike). Why do you guys hate the thing that benefits you?
Update #3:
Reggie is very scared that reducing the supply, or burning unsold tokens, will cause him to make far less money in return for his services. If that is true, then I say Reggie is very narrow-minded.
A page or so ago I reviewed the VeADIR. The price to buy VEADIR exposure is currently set at 1%. That is, .01 VERI for 1 ETH of exposure. I thought I heard Reggie say it was changing to 5%, so .05 VERI to buy 1 ETH of VEADIR exposure.
At $400 VERI and $1050 ETH, the new price would amount to about a 2% fee, or 0.4% if left at 1%. I would expect them to adjust the price to keep the fee at 1-2% as prices change.
At $400 VERI and $1050 ETH, the new price would amount to about a 2% fee, or 0.4% if left at 1%. I would expect them to adjust the price to keep the fee at 1-2% as prices change.
Assuming...
Bitcoin market cap is USD 137.6 bil
Ethereum market cap is USD 81.4 bil
NEO market cap is USD 6.8 bil
Totaling 225.8 bil in market cap (for platform-based cryptocurrencies)...
Then the cost of using VERI at 5% would mean its market cap is 225.8 * 0.05 = USD 11.29 bil
At 100 mil total supply, each VERI would be at USD 112.9
At 50 mil total supply, each VERI would be at USD 225.8
At 10 mil total supply, each VERI would be at USD 1129
At 5 mil total supply, each VERI would be at USD 2258
At current 2,036,645 circulating supply (assuming the total supply is equally the same), each VERI would be at USD 5543
... at time of writing.
If Veritaseum will provide more business units in addition to exposure to the cryptocurrency world, then that may add further value to the price tag.
As the VERI token can be rented out AND recycled to be resold...
1. Veritaseum's bottom line remain unaffected regardless of the total amount of supply, be it 100 mil or 2 mil.
2. It would be more financially rewarding for token holders if the total supply can be reduced.
Assuming the total supply is reduced way too much, that will simply translates to much lower cost in using VERI (below 5%).
If Veritaseum's platform is significantly value-added, then we may see the market bid up the price of VERI to be back at 5%.
Either way, reducing the total supply of VERI does NOT impair Veritaseum's bottom line (because token can be rented out and recycled to be resold over and over again) while at the same time will be more rewarding to token holders.
Update:
Reggie talks about being a capitalist and thus does not burn his own token/product. But if the total supply does not affect his profit potential, then it has nothing to do with being a capitalist, which is irrelevant as a point of argument.
While burning unsold token may "artificially" increase the price, Reggie cannot ignore the fact that the price will remain purely driven by the value the platform brings to the users, irregardless of whether there will be any artificial increase or decrease of price as a result of burning unsold token.
Obviously, Reggie is not very savvy in this line of reasoning but I hope he will come to his senses to the benefit of the token holders.
While Microsoft has unlimited software licenses, none of those licenses sold can be recycled to be resold again like VERI, so I don't think this is an equal comparison.
Quote
Update #2:
My point of argument is simple.
As the features of VERI allow it to be rented out and recycled to be resold over and over again, it makes the argument for excess supply of token to facilitate market demand to become redundant.
Assuming I understand what you are saying, does it make sense for VERI tokens to become increasingly rare as the platform is used, as your scenario suggests? I think not. My point of argument is simple.
As the features of VERI allow it to be rented out and recycled to be resold over and over again, it makes the argument for excess supply of token to facilitate market demand to become redundant.
A page or so ago I reviewed the VeADIR. The price to buy VEADIR exposure is currently set at 1%. That is, .01 VERI for 1 ETH of exposure. I thought I heard Reggie say it was changing to 5%, so .05 VERI to buy 1 ETH of VEADIR exposure.
At $400 VERI and $1050 ETH, the new price would amount to about a 2% fee, or 0.4% if left at 1%. I would expect them to adjust the price to keep the fee at 1-2% as prices change.
At $400 VERI and $1050 ETH, the new price would amount to about a 2% fee, or 0.4% if left at 1%. I would expect them to adjust the price to keep the fee at 1-2% as prices change.
Assuming...
Bitcoin market cap is USD 137.6 bil
Ethereum market cap is USD 81.4 bil
NEO market cap is USD 6.8 bil
Totaling 225.8 bil in market cap (for platform-based cryptocurrencies)...
Then the cost of using VERI at 5% would mean its market cap is 225.8 * 0.05 = USD 11.29 bil
At 100 mil total supply, each VERI would be at USD 112.9
At 50 mil total supply, each VERI would be at USD 225.8
At 10 mil total supply, each VERI would be at USD 1129
At 5 mil total supply, each VERI would be at USD 2258
At current 2,036,645 circulating supply (assuming the total supply is equally the same), each VERI would be at USD 5543
... at time of writing.
If Veritaseum will provide more business units in addition to exposure to the cryptocurrency world, then that may add further value to the price tag.
As the VERI token can be rented out AND recycled to be resold...
1. Veritaseum's bottom line remain unaffected regardless of the total amount of supply, be it 100 mil or 2 mil.
2. It would be more financially rewarding for token holders if the total supply can be reduced.
Assuming the total supply is reduced way too much, that will simply translates to much lower cost in using VERI (below 5%).
If Veritaseum's platform is significantly value-added, then we may see the market bid up the price of VERI to be back at 5%.
Either way, reducing the total supply of VERI does NOT impair Veritaseum's bottom line (because token can be rented out and recycled to be resold over and over again) while at the same time will be more rewarding to token holders.
Update:
Reggie talks about being a capitalist and thus does not burn his own token/product. But if the total supply does not affect his profit potential, then it has nothing to do with being a capitalist, which is irrelevant as a point of argument.
While burning unsold token may "artificially" increase the price, Reggie cannot ignore the fact that the price will remain purely driven by the value the platform brings to the users, irregardless of whether there will be any artificial increase or decrease of price as a result of burning unsold token.
Obviously, Reggie is not very savvy in this line of reasoning but I hope he will come to his senses to the benefit of the token holders.
While Microsoft has unlimited software licenses, none of those licenses sold can be recycled to be resold again like VERI, so I don't think this is an equal comparison.
Update #2:
My point of argument is simple.
As the features of VERI allow it to be rented out and recycled to be resold over and over again, it makes the argument for excess supply of token to facilitate market demand to become redundant.
Just found this thread but didn´t have time yet to read all...
Coinbase hacked!! Eth DOWN: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/coinbase-hacked-eth-down-1977571
Edit: Probably just somebody spreading panic again
Coinbase hacked!! Eth DOWN: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/coinbase-hacked-eth-down-1977571
Edit: Probably just somebody spreading panic again
Another innovation in smart contract project such this veritaseum.niced one,want to follow
Jump to: